Evolution vs. Creation

[james2mart]

Thats not what Jesus said - "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."

[killbot1000]

Thats not what Jesus said - "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."

 

 

actually, we dont know for certain thats what jesus said, we dont even know for sure if his disciples said it as the new testament was written atleast 50 years after jesus's death...

[wildcat69410]

actually, we dont know for certain thats what jesus said, we dont even know for sure if his disciples said it as the new testament was written atleast 50 years after jesus's death...

 

Well, we can be pretty certain that it is at least very close. Most of the writers of the Gospels either accompanied Jesus, or were very close to him during their lifetime. And although memory can deviate after 50 years, I'm sure an event like the Son of God speaking would be pretty memorable. I know people who know exactly what people said the day Pearl Harbor happened, and that was over 50 years ago.

[killbot1000]

Well, we can be pretty certain that it is at least very close. Most of the writers of the Gospels either accompanied Jesus, or were very close to him during their lifetime. And although memory can deviate after 50 years, I'm sure an event like the Son of God speaking would be pretty memorable. I know people who know exactly what people said the day Pearl Harbor happened, and that was over 50 years ago.

 

 

right, but 2000 years ago wasnt today, if jesus was about 30 when he died, his disciples were ATLEAST the same age, and after 50 years, they would have been 80? I just dont buy that, I think they would have all been dead by that time, so my assumption is that people that knew the disciples wrote down what jesus said, therefore one can conclude that the new testament is third hand knowledge, just my thoughts on it anyway

[wildcat69410]

right, but 2000 years ago wasnt today, if jesus was about 30 when he died, his disciples were ATLEAST the same age, and after 50 years, they would have been 80? I just dont buy that, I think they would have all been dead by that time, so my assumption is that people that knew the disciples wrote down what jesus said, therefore one can conclude that the new testament is third hand knowledge, just my thoughts on it anyway

 

Very true. But remember that after Jesus's death, the disciples all went spreading Jesus's words and Gospels. By the time they died, they would have spoken about it to hundreds of thousands of people. In reality, it may have indeed been written after it had been passed down verbally a few years. However, seeing the likelihood of it all, there may have been limited written copies of certain things that may have eventually been compiled to create some of the Gospels. I don't exactly know for sure.

[killbot1000]

Very true. But remember that after Jesus's death, the disciples all went spreading Jesus's words and Gospels. By the time they died, they would have spoken about it to hundreds of thousands of people. In reality, it may have indeed been written after it had been passed down verbally a few years. However, seeing the likelihood of it all, there may have been limited written copies of certain things that may have eventually been compiled to create some of the Gospels. I don't exactly know for sure.

 

 

What you say could all be true, but even if it is, its still not from the direct source, and how can anybody take a message literally when they dont even know FOR SURE if the source meant it in that way, thats just the way I see it

[wildcat69410]

What you say could all be true, but even if it is, its still not from the direct source, and how can anybody take a message literally when they dont even know FOR SURE if the source meant it in that way, thats just the way I see it

 

Well if we still say that what I said was true, it's very likely that the Disciples would have a good idea on what Jesus meant as literal or allegorical or metaphorical. During their teachings they would probably have mentioned that. But you bring up a very valid point, determining what Jesus said and how he meant it is probably the hardest thing to do.

[james2mart]

Well if we still say that what I said was true, it's very likely that the Disciples would have a good idea on what Jesus meant as literal or allegorical or metaphorical. During their teachings they would probably have mentioned that. But you bring up a very valid point, determining what Jesus said and how he meant it is probably the hardest thing to do.

 

Who even cares? If you're going to judge the fallibility of the New Testament, you need to know that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, etc" - dont know the reference. So whether or not the disciples remember it, God told them to write it down, so thats what they did.

[gwprod12]

On radio carbon dating. Since there is little or no evidence for a world-wide flood, it cannot therefore be assumed that a world-wide flood would interfere with the carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

 

Science deals in evidence.

 

However, if there were evidence of a world-wide flood destroying all plant life for a period of several months, it probably would not affect the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere sufficiently to throw off radio carbon dating methods. Also, assuming that the maximum range for radio carbon dating is about 3500 years, it wouldnt matter, because the flood would have had to have happened much earlier than that. Unless of course you discount all of the evidence of civilization and structures dating to 1500 BC.

[killbot1000]

Who even cares? If you're going to judge the fallibility of the New Testament, you need to know that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, etc" - dont know the reference. So whether or not the disciples remember it, God told them to write it down, so thats what they did.

 

See? This is why I cant even follow something like the bible. you ask for credible sources on everything except the book you follow, god damn thats wierd...

 

And how do you KNOW its god breathed? You dont, so dont pretend you do

[gwprod12]

On the "incorrectness of the word": If you've ever played telephone operator, you know that it doesnt take long before the message is severely garbled.

 

This was taken into account when the four gospels were compiled.

 

Most (if not all) serious biblical scholars ascribe to the idea that the authors of the gospels were not the Disciples themselves.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

 

It's debatable, of course.

[james2mart]

killbot1000 i know its weird. The thing is is that its kind of hard for us to not take the bible literally, because thats what we know, trust, and believe to be 100% factual. That's not something thats easily undone and I understand how frustrating it is.

 

About the earth, though. Between 80 and 85% of the earth's surface only has evidence of 3 geological cycles. Wouldn't there be alot more cycles if the earth were billions of years old?

 

Another thing. The recovery of MOST fossils indicates that they were covered up rapidly, and in such a fashion that water, mud, and sand crushed them into such state of preservation. Wouldn't this amount to the catastrophy of a Flood?

 

Even if you don't believe in the bible, I suggest you visit:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

This website has myriad articles, news stories, etc, on stuff about creation. Take a look around there and see what you believe and what you don't. This website is highly acclaimed for its accuracy on the upholding of the creation story, and the rest of Genesis.

[killbot1000]

killbot1000 i know its weird. The thing is is that its kind of hard for us to not take the bible literally, because thats what we know, trust, and believe to be 100% factual. That's not something thats easily undone and I understand how frustrating it is.

 

About the earth, though. Between 80 and 85% of the earth's surface only has evidence of 3 geological cycles. Wouldn't there be alot more cycles if the earth were billions of years old?

 

Another thing. The recovery of MOST fossils indicates that they were covered up rapidly, and in such a fashion that water, mud, and sand crushed them into such state of preservation. Wouldn't this amount to the catastrophy of a Flood?

 

Even if you don't believe in the bible, I suggest you visit:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

This website has myriad articles, news stories, etc, on stuff about creation. Take a look around there and see what you believe and what you don't. This website is highly acclaimed for its accuracy on the upholding of the creation story, and the rest of Genesis.

 

Well, its easy to assume why the earth is billions of years old even though theres only 3 cycles, the earth is being constantly recycled, very little of the earth from 4 billion years ago exists on the surface anymore, much of it has been recycled back into the magma.

 

The reason why theres a lot of missing fossils is because most of them arent covered up quickly, not much to it there, doesnt point to a worldwide flood because of the fossils we do have, it just doesnt point to that, not at all, however, there is a worldwide layer of euridium in the soil from 65 million years ago which indicates a meteor, maybe that had something to do with dinosaur fossils

[gwprod12]

So anyways. I dont have a problem with people believing the bible, or whatever. I think that's great.

 

Biblers can read and believe.

 

Sciencers can research and reason.

 

The two shouldnt mix.

 

I havent read "answersingenesis.com", but most "creationist" websites fall back on one piece of evidence for their "theories". Because the bible says so. I dont find that compelling as scientific evidence, and neither should you. Though you can believe it if you like.

 

Now, I have no problem whatsoever with trying to fit science to the bible. Saying "The bible says there was a world-wide flood. Let's find evidence for that" is cool, and I'm all for it. If scientists found good evidence for a world-wide flood, I'd look at it, without dismissing it. However. A lot of "evidence" isnt evidence. A lot of "evidence" IS evidence, but multiple conclusions can be drawn from it. The bible story of the flood might easily be factual. I just havent seen any evidence that supports it.

 

 

PS. I will read "answersingenesis.com" when I have a little more time.

 

I took a peek. It doesnt seem to have much scientific argument.

[james2mart]

gwprod12, dive in, don't just take a peek. The scientific stuff is in there.

[gwprod12]

gwprod12, dive in, don't just take a peek. The scientific stuff is in there.

 

 

Well. I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

However. I picked a topic at random (The Second Law of Thermodynamics).

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

 

The arguments used here have two significant flaws. They dont apply directly to the criticism, and they're incorrectly understood.

 

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

 

If energy is introduced into a closed system (as the above definition indicates is possible), then the entropy of the closed system would decrease (the available energy would increase). Since the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease (by law), the system therefore could not have been closed. That sounds like a solipsism, but it isnt. The system was only apparently closed.

 

EDIT: The above statement may need rewording, I'm working on it.

 

The following from http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

You may have noticed the words "closed system" a couple of times above. Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, available energy has decreased and entropy has increased as required.

The universe itself is thought to be an isolated system. This of course is not known for sure, but most evidence indicates that it is closed. A closed system has a finite amount of matter and energy, which continually transitions from a usable resource into an unusable resource. It's hard to explain how or why this occurs, but the entropic order idea is good. Energy has an inexorable tendency in a closed system to become less ordered, and more disordered. This tendency is universal and cumulative. However, the second law of thermodynamics does not indicate that order cannot be achieved, only that order must decay into disorder in a more or less steady progression. The inevitable outcome of this entropy will be a universe filled exclusively with disorganized energy that will not coalesce by itself.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organisa...ion_vs._entropy

Self-organization vs. entropy

The idea of self-organization challenges an earlier paradigm of ever-decreasing order which was based on a philosophical generalization from the second law of thermodynamics in statistical thermodynamics where entropy is envisioned as a measure of the statistical "disorder" at a microstate level. However, at the microscopic or local level, the two need not be in contradiction: it is possible for a system to reduce its entropy by transferring it to its environment.

 

In open systems, it is the flow of matter and energy through the system that allows the system to self-organize, and to exchange entropy with the environment. This is the basis of the theory of dissipative structures. Ilya Prigogine noted that self-organization can only occur far away from thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

It would appear that, since isolated systems cannot decrease their entropy, only open systems can exhibit self-organization. However, such a system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy. Specifically, a few of the system's macroscopic degrees of freedom can become more ordered at the expense of microscopic disorder.

 

In many cases of biological self-assembly, for instance metabolism, the increasing organization of large molecules is more than compensated for by the increasing entropy of small molecules, especially water. At the level of a whole organism and over longer time scales, though, biological systems are open systems feeding from the environment and dumping waste into it.

 

(I did a lot of editing of what I was saying, so I hope it's coherent)

 

That's just one of the articles. You cant make a scientific argument when you dont understand science.

 

EDIT: I was thinking just a minute ago about the idea that a complex structure would be more likely to be produced by an intelligence than by random forces. A snowflake is a complex construction that is created entirely by natural forces, as is a crystal. Neither would be considered life, of course, but what is life?

 

A human being is really not much more (on a physical level) than a gigantic colony of self-replicating machines. It does seem unlikely that random forces would create a self-replicating machine. But it only needed to happen once in the universe to spawn an entire collection of differing kinds of self-replicating machines.

[wildcat69410]

A human being is really not much more (on a physical level) than a gigantic colony of self-replicating machines. It does seem unlikely that random forces would create a self-replicating machine. But it only needed to happen once in the universe to spawn an entire collection of differing kinds of self-replicating machines.

 

On a physical level, yes. Physically, there is really not much that separate us from a lot of the things around us, but it is the extra inclusion of morals, cognitive thinking, and other thinking and mental functions that makes us much more complicated than that. I can understand complex physical objects being possibly made by nature, even though the odds are great, but one with such a high level of mental capacity and morality based thinking, in my opinion must have been made by a higher being.

 

Your thermodynamics argument is very true, I'm still looking into some of the other things though.

[gwprod12]

If it comforts you to believe that an omnipotent being or supernatural force found protohumans, thought them worthy, and created the spark of intelligence and self-awareness in them to create what we are today, I havent any problem with that.

 

Or it could just be a byproduct of our adaptive nature.

 

Also, if you buy the argument that carbon atoms, being conducive to the construction of self-replicating molecular machines, form life, there is no reason to believe that the universe isnt chock full of it. In which case, there are plenty of potentially moral, thinking, organisms.

 

The problem with the creationist point of view. is this: If the bible didnt exist, would you be able to generate the theory of a global flood destroying all life in the recent past? So, ignoring the bible as evidence of any sort, and merely using the flood story as a hypothetical framework, find evidence that the entire planet was covered in water less than 10,000 years ago. One of the primary problems with this idea is that in order for the entirety of the planet to be covered in water at any point, it would require that there be at least twice the amount of free water in the world as there is today. Where'd it go?

[james2mart]

I cannot explain where the water came from without use of the bible. I also believed that I addressed this before. In the creation story, The earth was not as it is today. There was an envelope of water surrounding the world, between the earth and the sun:

 

Genesis 1:6

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

 

1:7

So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

 

1:8

God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

[gwprod12]

I guess what you're trying to say is that there isnt any evidence at all. The bible isnt evidence (of a scientific form anyways).

[james2mart]

What I'm saying is that the bible does not leave many holes for misinterpretation. Since there is no strict scientific evidence (yet) there is no way to even say there was a flood. So if you are going to hypothetically believe PART of the bible (the Flood) then you have to (hypothetically) believe the parts that come with it.

 

By the way, Creationism isnt the only theory with holes. The missing links in evolution are still missing, and scientists are making extremely slow progress. Not to mention, most fossils found today are of animals that are still in existence.

[wildcat69410]

By the way, Creationism isnt the only theory with holes. The missing links in evolution are still missing, and scientists are making extremely slow progress. Not to mention, most fossils found today are of animals that are still in existence.

 

Bingo, in fact originally, Darwin's heaviest critics weren't Christians, but rather paleontologists who were appalled at his temerity for introducing a theory that had absolutely 0 fossil proof behind it. Darwin just told the paleontologists to keep working, and they'd eventually find it. They haven't exactly found much ever since.

 

The biggest thing that bothers me about the theory of evolution is the fact that whatever new evidence is brought up, they simply state assumed that it all happened that way. If evolution takes millions of years for this species to evolve into another, they say sometimes it takes that long. If it just takes a few thousand years, they say it may take that little time.

 

And what about the geological periods where tons of species literally appear out of nowhere, with virtually no evolutionary predecessors? Sure Creationism has holes, seeming impossibilities, but the very same can be said for evolution.

[killbot1000]

Bingo, in fact originally, Darwin's heaviest critics weren't Christians, but rather paleontologists who were appalled at his temerity for introducing a theory that had absolutely 0 fossil proof behind it. Darwin just told the paleontologists to keep working, and they'd eventually find it. They haven't exactly found much ever since.

 

The biggest thing that bothers me about the theory of evolution is the fact that whatever new evidence is brought up, they simply state assumed that it all happened that way. If evolution takes millions of years for this species to evolve into another, they say sometimes it takes that long. If it just takes a few thousand years, they say it may take that little time.

 

And what about the geological periods where tons of species literally appear out of nowhere, with virtually no evolutionary predecessors? Sure Creationism has holes, seeming impossibilities, but the very same can be said for evolution.

 

 

But youre forgetting that a dead animal has to be covered up quickly in order to be preserved, the geological condtions before all the animals "appeared" may not have been condusive to creating fossils, In fact they probably werent. Evolution does have some holes granted, but not nearly as much as creation. If you didnt grow up christian, would you really find evidence to support the bible? My guess is no...

[james2mart]

If you didnt grow up christian, would you really find evidence to support the bible? My guess is no...

 

Actually, many people that don't grow up in a christian home eventually find themselves scoping out religion to see what all the hype's about. some stay, some don't. As time progresses, scientists are finding no new evidence to support evolution, otherwise we would have heard about it. The reason that we HAVEN'T heard anything new is because much of what they are finding is negating evolution.

 

The missing links are still missing.

 

Science cannot explain where life actually came from. At one point, there was no life. The next, there was. WHERE DID IT COME FROM? No science can explain this.

 

Every watch on this earth has a watchmaker. Just like every animal, man, and plant has a maker. Someone had to be there to intricately design every last detail of the world that we live in. There is no way that all this could have happened by chance.

[killbot1000]

Actually, many people that don't grow up in a christian home eventually find themselves scoping out religion to see what all the hype's about. some stay, some don't. As time progresses, scientists are finding no new evidence to support evolution, otherwise we would have heard about it. The reason that we HAVEN'T heard anything new is because much of what they are finding is negating evolution.

 

The missing links are still missing.

 

Science cannot explain where life actually came from. At one point, there was no life. The next, there was. WHERE DID IT COME FROM? No science can explain this.

 

Every watch on this earth has a watchmaker. Just like every animal, man, and plant has a maker. Someone had to be there to intricately design every last detail of the world that we live in. There is no way that all this could have happened by chance.

 

An assumption, just because you dont know the answer, or the answer is beyond comprehension, you assume it was god? its an invalid argument, its like saying (A is created by B, therefore, C created A and B ). Can you see where the logic falls through here?